Genealogy Chat

Hi

On the 1871 census 3 members of a family should appear on the 1861 census but there doesn't seem to be any record of them. I tried looking for the head of that family on earlier census records but could only find him on the 1841 census. Is there something I am doing wrong? I have searched in various other names kidney being 1 and have dont a phonetic and soundex search and nothing comes up. Does anyone know why this is? Is it possible that the reason they didn't appear on the 1851 and 1861 census, is because they were not put on the census record? Any help much appreciated.

Thanks Nicola

There are many reasons why our ancestors do not appear in the census records where we expect them to be.

Census enumerators may have misheard what they were being told. They may have spelled names differently (Remember that there is no such thing as standardised spelling of names) or because they were human just like us they may have simply made a mistake.

The next step in the recording process is transcribing the record itself. Trying to decipher someone else’s handwriting is not always easy and often results in the record being incorrectly transcribed. Once again the people doing the transcribing are human so mistakes are made. Mistranscriptions can be very frustrating.

Here is a tip which may help you to find who you are searching for.

Type the persons forename into the census search form but leave the surname box completely empty. You can do this in reverse if you wish, entering a surname but leaving the forename box empty. Remember that people often used a different 1st name from the one they were born/baptised with. E.G. Dick = Richard, Harry = Henry, Chas = Charles, Nellie = Eleanor, Betsy = Elizabeth ect. Be aware also of common enumerators abbreviations such as Thos = Thomas, Hy = Henry, Wm = William ect

Type the persons birth year +/- 2 or +/- 5 years. Some people were not sure how old they were or they may have deliberately lied about their age to make themselves appear younger or older than their spouse. Children’s ages in census returns are generally more likely to be accurate than those of adults.

Type in their birth county/birthplace. Sometimes it pays to leave the birthplace blank because that too may have been misheard or mistranscribed. Some people genuinely did not know their exact place of birth.

Press "Search". This will bring up a list of all the people with that name of approximate age born in that county/place. Scroll through the list (It may be a long list) and hopefully you will find your missing ancestor shown as Borne instead of Bourne or Wilks instead of Wilkes or similar. It doesn't always work but it might.

Look for patterns in words rather than names just beginning with the 1st letter of the correct name. E.G. Baldrick has 8 letters and ends 'ick' as does Coldrick. Anyone looking for someone called Tucker may well be shocked to discover how some of their ancestors were mistranscribed.

Finally, do not forget to use wildcards in your search. They can often reveal the simplest of errors in the recording or transcription of the original records.

Good luck with your research.

Just to add, have even tried searching for the eldest child on the bmd indexes and I keep gettin nil results. Would it be possible also that he was not registered?

Thanks Nicola

If you don't have a phonetic search this is obviously difficult (what site are you using?) Have you tried just surname or just 1st names?
Maybe if you put details of 1871 on here we can locate them.

Jan

Maybe if you put the details of the family a name, date and place of birth and a request for a look up somebody will see if they can find the family for you. They may have been completely mistranscribed.

Jonesby
Thanks for that, have searched many of the ways you have suggested and nothing comes up, is strange, there was some good suggestions that I didn't think of. Have even gone as far as to search 10 years either side of birth year and nothing comes up. Can I ask what a wildcard is, have heard that term used before.

Jan
I have been using Ancestry and have tried using just first and surnames and nothing comes up.

Ann
I have also tried searching for just the eldest child, he shares the same first name as his father. Nothing has come up with that either.

As suggested by Jan I will put details of the 1871 census for this family, maybe some kind person will have a look for and find something that I have failed to find.
The family name is Kitney and they are shown as living at 61 Shortlands Road, Sittingbourne.

Richard 41 1830 bborn Hucking Kent Greengrocer
Mary 30 1841 born Stowting Kent, although on later census Stelling Miners, or Minnes Kent
Richard 12 1859 Sheerness
Eliza 10 1861 Sheerness
Robert 9 1862 Sheerness
james 7 1864 Sheernes
mary Ann 6 1865 Findsbury Kent

Thanks Ncola

I see your problem! Having no joy whatsoever.
Jan

Not too hopeful. too many discrepancied (no occ for Richard Sr):


1861 England Census

Name: Richard Kidney
Age: 4
Estimated birth year: abt 1857
Relation: Son
Father's Name: Richard
Mother's Name: Susannah
Gender: Male
Where born: Sheerness, Kent, England

Civil parish: Minster in Sheppey
Ecclesiastical parish: Sheerness Trinity
Town: Sheerness
County/Island: Kent

Registration district: Sheppey
Sub-registration district: Minster

Richard Kidney 36 Where born: Chatham, Kent, England
Susannah Kidney 30 Where born: Sheerness, Kent, England
Richard Kidney 4
Eliza Bastard 20
Eliza Kidney 1

What about this ?

Marriages Dec 1856 (>99%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****Bastard Susannah Sheppey 2a 1130
Bridges Jemima Sheppey 2a 1130
*****Kidney Richard Sheppey 2a 1130
Newton John Sheppey 2a 1130



1861

KIDNEY, Richard Head Married M 36 1825
Chatham
Kent VIEW
KIDNEY, Susannah Wife Married F 30 1831
Sheerness
Kent VIEW
KIDNEY, Richard Son M 4 1857
Sheerness
Kent VIEW
BARLARD, Eliza Sister F 20 1841 Servant Out Of Place
Sheerness
Kent VIEW
KIDNEY, Eliza Daughter F 1 1860
Sheerness
Kent VIEW

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RG number:
RG09 Piece:
531 Folio:
130 Page:
23

Registration District:
Sheppey Sub District:
1 Minster Enumeration District:
15 Ecclesiastical Parish:
Sheerness

Civil Parish:
Minster Municipal Borough:
Address:
30, Kings Street, Minster, Sheerness County:
Kent



Marriages Sep 1867 (>99%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earle Mary Milton 2a 1169
Kidney Richard Milton 2a 1169


1871

KITNEY, Richard Head M 41 1830 Kent VIEW
KITNEY, Mary Wife F 30 1841 Kent VIEW
KITNEY, Richard Son M 12 1859 Kent VIEW
KITNEY, Eliza Daughter F 10 1861 Kent VIEW
KITNEY, Robert Son M 9 1862 Kent VIEW
KITNEY, James Son M 7 1864 Kent VIEW
KITNEY, Mary Ann Daughter F 6 1865 Kent VIEW

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RG number:
RG10 Piece:
984 Folio:
78 Page:
7

Registration District:
Milton Sub District:
Milton Enumeration District:
33 Ecclesiastical Parish:


Civil Parish:
Sittingbourne Municipal Borough:
Address:
Shortlands Road, Sittingbourne County:
Kent

Thank you Jan and choccy, you both have certainly given me a lot to think about. I to have found the one with susannah and have given that some thought.

It looks like there is a strong possibility that susannah could of been Richards 1st wife. Will have to see if I can find a Marriage and death for Susannah.

Thank you again
Nicola

Jonesey - That's not exactly how the UK census were conducted.

What actually happened is that a few days before the census night (which was always Sunday @ midnight) the enumerator went round his route dropping off census forms. On the Monday, he went round and picked up the forms, helping to complete those the subjects had bother with (probably had to go round again on Tuesday etc., to pick up misses). He took these now completed forms back to the office, and then copied them into the enumerators book. For 1841-1901, these original forms were destroyed, but not in 1911.

This info appears under every English Ancestry search screen, sometimes worded slightly differently, via the "Learn more" link. I didn't check any but the English censuses.

Maybe Susannah.....?


Deaths Dec 1866

Kitney Susan ..35 ..N. Aylesford 2a 226


Gwyn

I saw that too Gwyn and wondered if this was the correct 1, as there is no other listings, this is more than likely it.

Thanks Gwyn

Nicola

Hi Malcolm (mgnv),

I wouldn't disagree in essence with what you say about the way the various census were likely to have been conducted.

In the case of households where the occupants were unable to read or write however the enumerator would have asked the occupants for their details and would then complete the census sheet on their behalf. This may have led to discrepancies in the details that were recorded. In the mid 1800's a large proportion of the population were illiterate. The proportion fell as time went on aided by the 1870 Elementary Education Act and the 1880 Education Act but even as late as 1900 it is estimated that between 8~10% of the adult population were still illiterate.

The enumerator would then as you state, transfer the detail from the census sheets into his enumerators book which once again presented an opportunity for error.

Finally details from those books have only relatively recently been transcribed by people engaged by the various genealogy sites that now display those transcriptions on their own websites. Once again an opportunity for error presented itself.

As a consequence the transcribed records that are to be found on sites such as this one or similar ones have had 2 or 3 opportunities to be corrupted. That is in addition to details which may have been wrongly recorded in the first place based upon information incorrectly given for reasons such as ignorance, vanity or deliberate deceit.

In view of all of that it is little wonder that we cannot always find the census records of those we seek at the first try.

I thought it important to say exactly how censuses were conducted.

However, one of Jonesey's main points - that there was some interpretation involved - still stands, whether it was interpretation of their oral responses or of their written ones.

As an aside, the enumerators were all local residents, so even though I might find some of the broad regional accents semi-incomprehensible, it presumably wouldn't be a bother to them.

Although for 1881-1885 the percentage of signatures on marriage was still over 10% for signing with an X, by 1900 it had dropped to 3%.
Of course, there's a substantial difference between being able to sign one's name and being literate. Also, adults marrying tend to be at the younger end, so there would have been plenty of older folk around to push the average illiteracy rate up.
[Sixty-third annual report of the registrar-general (1900) Page xiii
http://www.histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/Browse?path=Browse/Registrar%20General%20%28by%20date%29&active=yes&titlepos=130 ]